Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk? Options

[carbuncle]

There are some strong accusations being thrown out about members of a certain closed mailing list.

Concentrated stalking and attacks against Russavia

Yesterday a member of a closed e-mail list named "Wikipediametric" forwarded me their archive asking me to do something about it. Out of the 3000+ emails more than a half is filled with discussion how "to get" and "attack" Russavia. Among the suggested methods were stalking Russavia edits, carefully crafted edit warring (making sure that no member of the group would make more than one or two reverts), low level personal attacks designed to engineer civility blocks for Russavia's responses, block shopping, attempts to out Russavia. "Friends of Russavia", particular User:PasswordUsername, User:Offliner, User:YMB29 as well as User:Anonimu were also under similar attack. The group was also discussing ways to plant their own checkusers, methods of creating sockpuppets untraceable by checkusering, etc. So far I have not found a single discussion or even kudos for creating noncontroversial wiki content but long series of joy on every block for the people listed as their enemies, particular Russavia. They specifically discussed how to nurture special relations with Sandstein and use them to block their enemies. Among the most active members are User:Digwuren, User:Biophys, User:Piotrus, User:Molobo, User:Radeksz. The emails are almost certainly genuine. It looks like for at list half a year Russavia was a target of constant coordinated attacks by a group of active wikipedians quite skillful in the art of achieving victory by banning their opponents. I am not sure he was aware of this particular group but the editing history of articles touched by Russavia is quite telling by itself. I do not think it is in the project best interest to let them succeed.

I am not sure what to do about this archive. I will forward it to the Arbcom and I could provide it to any administrator I trust. I would not give it to nonadmins (including Russavia himself) or anybody else (unless the authors give me permissions) as it contain a significant amount of personal information that might be abused. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[MBisanz]

According to new, now oversighted evidence that I saw before it was oversighted, it appears the EEML never stopped colluding even after the case had started and has maintained an active mailing list through today working on, you guessed it, Eastern European Wiki articles.

[radek]

According to new, now oversighted evidence that I saw before it was oversighted, it appears the EEML never stopped colluding even after the case had started and has maintained an active mailing list through today working on, you guessed it, Eastern European Wiki articles.

If you would've looked at the oversighted evidence carefully you would've seen me requesting to be unsubscribed from the list awhile back. And the fact that the list was/is still around, mostly talking about articles in newspapers, watching the case, and posting little "so and so just voted" messages wasn't a secret since Wikipedia Review's very own Abd is on the list now (I don't know if he still is) and said as much recently.

How the hell you get the things you said on the case page about "going after" people I have no idea. And that from an email title. Seriously, WTF?

[MBisanz]

According to new, now oversighted evidence that I saw before it was oversighted, it appears the EEML never stopped colluding even after the case had started and has maintained an active mailing list through today working on, you guessed it, Eastern European Wiki articles.

If you would've looked at the oversighted evidence carefully you would've seen me requesting to be unsubscribed from the list awhile back. And the fact that the list was/is still around, mostly talking about articles in newspapers, watching the case, and posting little "so and so just voted" messages wasn't a secret since Wikipedia Review's very own Abd is on the list now (I don't know if he still is) and said as much recently.

How the hell you get the things you said on the case page about "going after" people I have no idea. And that from an email title. Seriously, WTF?

Do you give me permission to quote one of the subject lines you sent?

[radek]

According to new, now oversighted evidence that I saw before it was oversighted, it appears the EEML never stopped colluding even after the case had started and has maintained an active mailing list through today working on, you guessed it, Eastern European Wiki articles.

If you would've looked at the oversighted evidence carefully you would've seen me requesting to be unsubscribed from the list awhile back. And the fact that the list was/is still around, mostly talking about articles in newspapers, watching the case, and posting little "so and so just voted" messages wasn't a secret since Wikipedia Review's very own Abd is on the list now (I don't know if he still is) and said as much recently.

How the hell you get the things you said on the case page about "going after" people I have no idea. And that from an email title. Seriously, WTF?

Do you give me permission to quote one of the subject lines you sent?

Sure. Do you mean "Flo shows her true colors"?

[radek]

According to new, now oversighted evidence that I saw before it was oversighted, it appears the EEML never stopped colluding even after the case had started and has maintained an active mailing list through today working on, you guessed it, Eastern European Wiki articles.

If you would've looked at the oversighted evidence carefully you would've seen me requesting to be unsubscribed from the list awhile back. And the fact that the list was/is still around, mostly talking about articles in newspapers, watching the case, and posting little "so and so just voted" messages wasn't a secret since Wikipedia Review's very own Abd is on the list now (I don't know if he still is) and said as much recently.

How the hell you get the things you said on the case page about "going after" people I have no idea. And that from an email title. Seriously, WTF?

Do you give me permission to quote one of the subject lines you sent?

Sure. Do you mean "Flo shows her true colors"?

Uhhh ... of course in the above I'm making the assumption that you know the difference between relevant stuff and personal info (which you don't have my permission to quote)

[MBisanz]

According to new, now oversighted evidence that I saw before it was oversighted, it appears the EEML never stopped colluding even after the case had started and has maintained an active mailing list through today working on, you guessed it, Eastern European Wiki articles.

If you would've looked at the oversighted evidence carefully you would've seen me requesting to be unsubscribed from the list awhile back. And the fact that the list was/is still around, mostly talking about articles in newspapers, watching the case, and posting little "so and so just voted" messages wasn't a secret since Wikipedia Review's very own Abd is on the list now (I don't know if he still is) and said as much recently.

How the hell you get the things you said on the case page about "going after" people I have no idea. And that from an email title. Seriously, WTF?

Do you give me permission to quote one of the subject lines you sent?

Sure. Do you mean "Flo shows her true colors"?

Uhhh ... of course in the above I'm making the assumption that you know the difference between relevant stuff and personal info (which you don't have my permission to quote)

I would be interested in a translation of: ArbCom election‎ - Niektorych nie znam, ale z tymi ktorych znam to sie zgadzam z Twoja opinia.. oprocz Jehomann. Cos …

[radek]

[/quote]
I would be interested in a translation of: ArbCom election‎ - Niektorych nie znam, ale z tymi ktorych znam to sie zgadzam z Twoja opinia.. oprocz Jehomann. Cos …
[/quote]

""I would be interested in a translation..." of a phrase in a language I don't understand" is a super-backing off of "they're going after candidates" that you very irresponsibly posted on the ArbCom case pages.

Seriously. Maybe asking for a translation FIRST before ... um ... "going after" me as you did on ArbCom case page would've been a good idea. Clue??? I got a few spare ones laying around (though obviously I've been using them up lately myself)

Anyway, the translation is "Most of them I don't know, but wrt to the ones I'm familiar with I agree with your opinion ... except for Jehomann".

Basic breakdown here is that Piotrus supports J, I'm neutral and Jacurek opposes. As indicated above.

I mean freakin' A, if that was the part that bothered you, and you don't speak freakin' Polish and don't really understand what it says, then why did you post crap about how I am "going after" people??? For what it's worth I've also emailed my opinon (i.e. "neutral") to the J man himself who was helluva more understanding about it (now I'm "neutral, leaning towards +...").

And if you'd really like I could bring in the stuff you said in June about my appeal of Thatcher's sanction.

[MBisanz]

I would be interested in a translation of: ArbCom election‎ - Niektorych nie znam, ale z tymi ktorych znam to sie zgadzam z Twoja opinia.. oprocz Jehomann. Cos …

""I would be interested in a translation..." of a phrase in a language I don't understand" is a super-backing off of "they're going after candidates" that you very irresponsibly posted on the ArbCom case pages.

Seriously. Maybe asking for a translation FIRST before ... um ... "going after" me as you did on ArbCom case page would've been a good idea. Clue??? I got a few spare ones laying around (though obviously I've been using them up lately myself)

Anyway, the translation is "Most of them I don't know, but wrt to the ones I'm familiar with I agree with your opinion ... except for Jehomann".

Basic breakdown here is that Piotrus supports J, I'm neutral and Jacurek opposes. As indicated above.

I mean freakin' A, if that was the part that bothered you, and you don't speak freakin' Polish and don't really understand what it says, then why did you post crap about how I am "going after" people??? For what it's worth I've also emailed my opinon (i.e. "neutral") to the J man himself who was helluva more understanding about it (now I'm "neutral, leaning towards +...").

And if you'd really like I could bring in the stuff you said in June about my appeal of Thatcher's sanction.

I wasn't asking you to translate to confirm what I said on-wiki, I can read the subjects from 22 Nov, 21 Nov, 19 Nov, 18 Nov (2x), and 17 Nov since they are in English and that is what I based my statement off of. I just wanted to know what some of the ones I couldn't read and that Google translate indicated might be interesting.

Also, if we are going back to June, the arbs have had that email in their possession since July.

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[Deputy Cabal Ringleader]

I wasn't asking you to translate to confirm what I said on-wiki, I can read the subjects from 22 Nov, 21 Nov, 19 Nov, 18 Nov (2x), and 17 Nov since they are in English and that is what I based my statement off of. I just wanted to know what some of the ones I couldn't read and that Google translate indicated might be interesting.

Also, if we are going back to June, the arbs have had that email in their possession since July.

Since I cannot read those subjects, I wonder if Radek can post them here, for the amusement of us all. And even before that happens, MBisanz, can you please elaborate on how evil we really are, based on the evidence you have? What do you think we were (are) plotting? Do tell.

Just so it's not all "take", here's my "give". One of my major plots for next year included taking part in the WikiCup. Even if I am topic banned from my primary area of expertise, I thought I can give most editors (including the few participating arbitrators) a run for their money. But you know, after today, even if I am not banned, I am having second thoughts: after all, I am receiving so much love from Wikipedia, I feel, how to put it... too overwhelmed to contribute. What do you think?

EDIT: I just found what made Radek so angry. I am not surprised (at Radek's tone; I am much more surprised at yours - I had expected much better of you). Do tell, how are we targeting those arbs? With rotten tomatoes?

This post has been edited by Deputy Cabal Ringleader:

[carbuncle]

Just so it's not all "take", here's my "give". One of my major plots for next year included taking part in the WikiCup. Even if I am topic banned from my primary area of expertise, I thought I can give most editors (including the few participating arbitrators) a run for their money. But you know, after today, even if I am not banned, I am having second thoughts: after all, I am receiving so much love from Wikipedia, I feel, how to put it... too overwhelmed to contribute. What do you think?

You're hinting that you might not participate in something on WP because WP doesn't love you enough? You know where you're posting, right?

[Abd]

Just so it's not all "take", here's my "give". One of my major plots for next year included taking part in the WikiCup. Even if I am topic banned from my primary area of expertise, I thought I can give most editors (including the few participating arbitrators) a run for their money. But you know, after today, even if I am not banned, I am having second thoughts: after all, I am receiving so much love from Wikipedia, I feel, how to put it... too overwhelmed to contribute. What do you think?

You're hinting that you might not participate in something on WP because WP doesn't love you enough? You know where you're posting, right?

I'm sure he does, Carbuncle. And I fully understand how he feels. I poured about two years of intensive work into Wikipedia, and, in the end, the committee that was supposed to be the last stop on dispute resolution did not resolve the dispute at all, it simply banned me, even though, if they bothered to read the actual evidence and independently consider it, they'd have seen that I was very careful to follow dispute resolution process, and, indeed, part of the "problem" was that I was effective at it, i.e., real consensus was found in the end. Which those who were promoting what's been called Majority POV didn't like.

Because the EE editors were kind enough to admit me to their private mailing list, I've seen what they discuss. Not every message is "nice." Some show problems. Surprise. A group of editors sharing an interest in EE issues includes some who don't really get the collaborative process. But Piotrus clearly did, and believed in it. I did as well, and from a few decisions, expected support from ArbComm in spite of a crowd of mutually-aligned editors (I called it a Cabal -- horrors! -- and I was very careful to state that being a member of a "Cabal" was not a charge of misbehavior, and that caution was completely disregarded, one of the "findings" against me was that I'd made charges without substantiating them. But what I'd actually charged was "involvement," not "reprehensible collaboration," and the point was that the tidal wave of "ban him" comments were not coming from neutral editors, as shown by prior participation, and I did, indeed, present that evidence.)

The first arb to comment and make proposals in my case was Bainer, and, while his comments weren't perfect, he did quite a good job compared to what came later, and I accepted *everything* he suggested and proposed. I had no problem with mentorship. But then less cautious arbitrators piled in and Bainer was overwhelmed. Carcharoth waited and asked questions, good ones. But Carcharoth was likewise overwhelmed by the tide of knee-jerk arbitrator responses that boiled down to "I don't like him, he's the cause of us having to consider this mess, and he isn't contrite, might complain again if he's abused again...."

ArbComm is badly broken, and the process and system are badly broken, and it's burning out and spitting out editors right and left.

Disputes are not resolved by banning parties. They are resolved by finding consensus. Consensus process was underway, and it was working, albeit slowly, and ArbComm interfered with it by banning the only truly active and knowledgeable editor remaining on one side, having banned the other before -- for no good reason in that case as well, it was based on off-wiki comments that supposedly demonstrated an "agenda." What was the agenda? Well, to ensure that the article reflected Wikipedia policy on reliable source, which. because this was a science article (cold fusion), would lead to a different article balance than reliance on popular media sources. But that was successfully framed by Pcarbonn's accuser (JzG!) as the classic "media is biased" view, which it wasn't. Rather it was a position resulting from a disconnect between what is in popular media or tertiary sources and what is in peer-reviewed secondary source, the supposed gold standard for science articles, which for a long time has favored cold fusion as a reality.

Now, I come off my three-month site ban in a few days, probably in time to vote in the ArbComm election. Will I even bother to vote? Why? Do I care who wins?

Wikipedia, personified by ArbComm, did not care about me, why should I care about it?

But I might vote for Jehochman. He is an example, by the way of how I was able, following the intention and literal prescriptions of dispute resolution process, to convert apparent opponents into friends, he had originally wanted me banned for "disruption." And I have to give credit to Jehochman for being sufficiently open to that. ArbComm tossed all that in the trash. My real crime? Probably that I have opinions about how to reform Wikipedia process to make it more efficient, more effective, and more fair. Otherwise I cannot explain the ban against participation in disputes where I was not an originating party. Essentially, I'd seen some disputes and had actually resolved them; but in one case the dispute went to ArbComm, which supported my position in its decision. But I was an outsider challenging administrative abuse. (If you challenge administrative abuse, by a popular administrator, you are an outsider no matter how long you have been editing and no matter how correct you are according to policy and guidelines). That was not to be allowed. Finding of fact underneath the ruling? Not necessary, apparently, and the same massive dysfunction exists with the pending EE mailing list decision.

On-wiki misbehavior is assumed from off-hand private comments, which have been cherry-picked from a massive archive, as if someone had placed a mike in a bar and caught a conversation between Wikipedia editors blowing off steam. ArbComm should never have allowed the list contents to be mentioned on-wiki, and there may have been violations of law involved; when the smoke clears, we may be able to see better. When they have banned an editor, the editor no longer has a motivation to abstain from legal action.

You never improve the project by banning an editor, compared to other possible options, banning should be a method of absolute last resort, and it often creates far more mess than other options, consider Scibaby. Massive damage. Cause? Administrative abuse, unaddressed, at the beginning, a ban by an involved admin, supported then by other involved administrators, initially. And then, of course, if the banned editor refuses to just go away quietly, it's then "block violation," and enforcement widens some. The blocked editor is supposed to appeal to ArbComm, and, from what I've seen, snowballs have a better chance in hell than a naive blocked editor does of seeing a fair hearing there. And sometimes even a very knowledgeable, experienced editor, when the mob is screaming, doesn't get a fair hearing. And that would be Piotrus, for sure.

I have occasion frequently to talk with experts in various fields. The opinion is almost universal that Wikipedia is utterly unreliable and that trying to fix it, for an expert, is impossibly tedious and difficult. And ArbComm is making it worse, not better.

I see only one path to a solution. Off-wiki organization. "Cabals." Lots of them! Ultimately, they would be disclosed on-wiki, that could easily be incentivized; if Wikipedia were actually following wikitheory as exemplified in the guidelines and policies, "cavassing" and other forms of coordination would be only helpful, not harmful.

Isn't it odd that Wikipedia finds it reprehensible to inform and consult with others who are knowledgeable on a topic regarding a dispute? Isn't that what should be done? When I had questions on cold fusion (I was almost completely naive on the topic in January of 2009, even though I had a science background and had been quite aware in 1989-1990 of the issue, but I'd concluded like nearly everyone else that the original findings were mistakes), I asked experts. That was later called "meat puppeting" for one of these experts. Who was improperly and abusively banned by JzG, that action was part of what was covered by that ArbComm case. But, of course, that didn't lift the ban.....

And we've seen the same kind of charges in the EE case. The mailing list is a group of people interested in and knowledgeable on EE issues. They are not all "Polish," though certainly some are. They are open to participation by people not "politically" aligned with them. I've seen no improper coordination, even under the silly standards that have been set up.

(If we don't make decisions by vote, please explain to me again why canvassing is a problem? Okay, I'll answer the question. Because lazy administrators sometimes make decisions by vote count. And *that* is the problem, not canvassing. That covers RfA as well, of course, and RfA is a place where votes definitely are counted. And badly. I know editors who rigorously avoid involvement in any conflict because they know that it can result in negative RfA votes, which means that even if they know clearly what's going on, they won't express their opinion, because they'd like to pass that high bar of 70% or more. And then, of course, what happens is that once elected, admins show their true colors, which we didn't know before, and the system makes removal of the privilege extremely difficult, which it shouldn't be -- actually "suspension" should be much more common, whenever there is a serious charge accepted by ArbComm for review. I would argue that any faction that musters a significant percentage of the community to support a candidate for admin should be allowed to elect one. One-third? And the *arguments* should be acceptable to the closing bureaucrat that the admin would not abuse the tools.

Piotrus did not abuse his tools, as far as I've seen, and no evidence of tool abuse was given in a finding of fact.

[Milton Roe]

(If we don't make decisions by vote, please explain to me again why canvassing is a problem? Okay, I'll answer the question. Because lazy administrators sometimes make decisions by vote count. And *that* is the problem, not canvassing. That covers RfA as well, of course, and RfA is a place where votes definitely are counted.

Yes, WP is NOT a democracy. Except in places where it is. The official idea is that the wiggle room that closing deciders get in the gray area of 60-70% acceptance, is somehow enough to name it as some other process which is NOT democracy. Which of course, is stupid. Any system that votes is democratic to the extent that it votes. Perhaps we should just say that Wikipedia is a corrupt democracy.

The problem is much worse than laziness! The problem is that without being able to identify voters, there really is no way to run a democracy at all, even a semi-corrupt one. Wikipedia NOW actually DOES identify voters by their reputatons, and by keeping votes in each decision small and unadvertised, this gives all voters a chance to see and "identify by rep" all the people who vote in a given RfA (for example).

A controlled "single issue" coordinated bloc of 100 "political action group" voters would be enough to totally torpedo any RfA, which is why such a thing is illegal. As it is, the cabal has its own little group which serves in this function, and runs by IRC and old-boy cronyism, and they want no competition for this. Laziness, my ass. This is about keeping the power you have already, and have gotten by means which stink badly.

A large coordinated "PAC" block of nameusers (numbers approaching 1000) would be enough to sway totally anonymous elections, like ArbCom. WP has no defence against such things being organized spontaneously, off-line. Except the fact that somebody will always infiltrate and geek. And it's hard to organize except on-wiki, and they've made that illegal.

I suppose it could be formally organized off-wiki at someplace like WR. Heh heh heh heh. That might be anough to torque them into another BADSITES frenzy. WR does some of this already, but we don't actually have a dedicated subforum, or even editorial page "site endorsement" for politicos, like some print media do.

[Abd]

(If we don't make decisions by vote, please explain to me again why canvassing is a problem? Okay, I'll answer the question. Because lazy administrators sometimes make decisions by vote count. And *that* is the problem, not canvassing. That covers RfA as well, of course, and RfA is a place where votes definitely are counted.

Yes, WP is NOT a democracy. Except in places where it is.

WP:NOT may win the prize for oft-repeated silliness. WP is all the NOTed things, to some degree, and the unclarity is part of what preserves the power of the oligarchy, which has no rules to restrain it.

The rule of Ignore All Rules is simply the standard common law rule of Public Policy, which basically provides that decisions are to be made with the public welfare in mind, which takes precedence over strict formal following of rules. But there is a reason why Public Policy decisions are unusual when law is settled: it harms the public if rules aren't clear.

All the time, WP editors are punished for breaking rules that weren't explicit. IAR is only for the oligarchy, not for ordinary editors. Rule of Law came to be as a protection against this kind of abuse.

So ... Wikipedia has ended up with a set of "policies and guidelines" which are often excellent, and which are roundly ignored by the oligarchy when it suits them. Naive editors read the policies and guidelines, recognize the excellent, and devote months or even years to Wikipedia, thinking that they will be protected if push comes to shove. And then the reality comes down, and all that work counts for very little.

I'd say that I was given better access to resources and protection against unfair blocking than a vandal, perhaps due to 13,000 edits or so. But not much better. I do find it odd, personally, that I had a pretty clean block record if it's examined closely (i.e., I was blocked for supposedly attacking Fritzpoll. But then look at who gave me rollback later, and who offered to mentor me. Fritzpoll. And Iridescent, who blocked me, later wrote that she had more doubt about that block than anything else she'd done. And I gave her no grief at all over it, I even used her block as an example of how to do it right.) There wasn't anything that could really be shown to be disruptive, as distinct from confronting -- using dispute resolution process properly -- abuse, or discussing possible changes to an article when some editors want the topic to go away. Yet ArbComm ordered me blocked, site-banned. Without actually justifying it.

In any case, I was, in a sense, testing Wikipedia. I thought it was better than it was, and I was proving it. Sometimes when you set out to prove a thing, you find out that it isn't true. Wikipedia was much worse than I thought. I knew that certain areas were really dysfunctional, such as AN/I, which is routinely insane. If an administrative action must be debated, it's probably inappropriate, AN/I should be like 911. You call 911, and there are no arguments, simply collection of facts and assignment of resources. You would never use 911 as a place to argue for someone to be convicted of a crime. You simply report what is happening, that there is an immediate danger, and the police -- for a possible criminal matter -- handle it, using standard police discretion, and they make no enduring decisions, that involves a much more cautious process.

But I had seen some good ArbComm decisions, and was misled by that. I'd also seen some bad ones, but nobody's perfect. And there had been new arbitrators elected, some very good ones. Now, they are gone, going, and still there but surprisingly ineffective.

I do know how to fix it, but who is asking me? So ... I get to have more fun elsewhere, and I am. Much more fun.

The official idea is that the wiggle room that closing deciders get in the gray area of 60-70% acceptance, is somehow enough to name it as some other process which is NOT democracy. Which of course, is stupid. Any system that votes is democratic to the extent that it votes. Perhaps we should just say that Wikipedia is a corrupt democracy.

It's a hybrid system. The basic theory is adhocracy, decisions are made by the first admin who come across a situation and considers it ripe for decision. Given decent review process, this is actually quite efficient, it's part of what I'd keep. However, structure might be created that facilitates it functioning more neutrally and more efficiently.

The system depends, as conceived, not on votes, but on administrative responsibility. I've seen massive voting one way with a close in the other direction, and this was correct. Proof that it was correct? Nobody took it to Deletion Review. In other words, people argued and voted for an outcome, but it wasn't really worth debating further. ("Correct" here merely means "reasonable." I was, in the example I'm thinking of, on the "losing side," in another example I can pull up, I was on the "winning side." Doesn't matter.)

What I found, though, was that plenty of admins didn't understand administrative responsibility. They thought that what they were doing in a close was implementing "the will of the community." So they would look at the votes and if it looked like 60-70% or more, they would decide that way, without really checking out the evidence. The proof of this, besides what they actually said: if you asked them to reconsider based on new evidence, they would say, "It wasn't my decision, it was the community's decision." That is, with the wikistructure that I imagined Wikipedia had -- an excellent structure, a serious error. The whole point of adhocracy is individual responsibility, with the community providing advice. That's why the closing admin is supposed to weigh the arguments, not the votes. And then it is quick and efficient to get a decision reconsidered, otherwise it is way, way too much trouble, too often. And with admins who understood this, it worked. I got AfD's reversed simply by showing evidence to an admin who had closed with Delete. I.e., had that evidence been present in the AfD originally, they would have decided differently, because they did, in fact, consider the evidence.

The problem is much worse than laziness!

Well, I'd say that there are other problems besides laziness, and "laziness" is too pejorative. The fact is that admins don't have time to do what really needs to be done, not on their own, and too often. This problem extends up to ArbComm, arbitrators vary in how much they will put in, but all of them are presented with situations that, for good decisions, would require quite a bit of investigation, and they are presented with mountains of contrary evidence by highly interested parties. The fix is so obvious that I won't even say it. So there!

The problem is that without being able to identify voters, there really is no way to run a democracy at all, even a semi-corrupt one. Wikipedia NOW actually DOES identify voters by their reputatons, and by keeping votes in each decision small and unadvertised, this gives all voters a chance to see and "identify by rep" all the people who vote in a given RfA (for example).

It's impossible to do that, even in a small RfA, not reliably, and it's moot. The decision is made by the closing bureaucrat, who really does have discretion. Or should, were the system sane. It's never been carefully thought out.

Voters on Wikipedia, though, are generally identified. There are problems with socks, but they are relatively small, and if decisions were made by arguments, as is supposedly normally done, sock puppetry would be quite ineffective. Does it really matter of two people are making an argument instead of one? To me, it's a bit irritating that an argument is repeated! It certainly does not become stronger. Except that to some, it does. To me, though, that an editor, in a relatively healthy system, would try to go around the "single-person argument bias" by commenting through a sock, is harmless.

The real problem is lack of careful deliberative process. You get a mass of arguments with no sub-resolutions. It's known how to run real consensus process, and Wikipedia resembles it very, very little. I was actually doing it, and it was working. That's what ArbComm tossed out the door, because of a screaming mob. A few members of ArbComm, indeed, were part of the mob. And so were a series of administrators who routinely violated recusal policy, and who saw the danger I presented to their habits. Hence the ruling that I was not to involve myself in disputes where I wasn't an originating party. That's a beaut, really! If I'm neutral, I'm not to get involved!

A controlled "single issue" coordinated bloc of 100 "political action group" voters would be enough to totally torpedo any RfA, which is why such a thing is illegal.

Except that such an effort, in a sane system, would be quite visible. Someday I'll explain how and why. The whole concept of RfA is wacky, it made some sense originally, and so it continues as it did even when the process has become harmful and quite biased. Often the best are excluded and persons who should never have been trusted with the tools make it through. It should be much easier to gain the tools (originally everyone had them, I understand) and much easier for them to be suspended. And recusal rules should be made very, very clear. That's actually happened, but ... there are still plenty of admins who argue strenuously against the clear policy. A sensible ArbComm would actually suspend the privileges for administrators who argue against recusal policy, as many did in my case and in prior cases, and who show by their actions that they don't agree with it, and if they argue against it, and they are using the tools, that usage should be looked at carefully. "Suspend." Not remove, all that would be needed would be for the admin to show understanding of the policy.

As it is, the cabal has its own little group which serves in this function, and runs by IRC and old-boy cronyism, and they want no competition for this. Laziness, my ass. This is about keeping the power you have already, and have gotten by means which stink badly.

It's both. I'm still not as negative as you, Milton, I ascribe the problems to defective structure, not to the editors who play the game within that structure. Some are pretty scuzzy, but the real problem is a system that gives them excess power and does not restrain it. Who is responsible for the system? Who provides the labor that runs Wikipedia? Same answer. Blaming the parasites is the wrong approach, they merely took advantage of opportunities that we offered by being incoherent and not caring enough to organize ourselves. We are "lazy," really, if I'm going to use that word. Wikipedia will continue as it is (short of what is here called the "lockdown," Somey?) which, I agree, could come as labor support collapses, which is one of the possibilities.)

A large coordinated "PAC" block of nameusers (numbers approaching 1000) would be enough to sway totally anonymous elections, like ArbCom. WP has no defence against such things being organized spontaneously, off-line. Except the fact that somebody will always infiltrate and geek. And it's hard to organize except on-wiki, and they've made that illegal.

Again, I know how to do it safely. I'll help anyone who wants to do it, because the medium is the message. The structure that would create coherent voluntary activity on the part of 1000 editors? Quite enough to reform the place totally. If it is large and not neutral, it would inspire the creation of other such "cabals," to balance it. And guess what? When you have coherent interest groups like this, they can negotiate with each other. And they will, because they can get much more done cooperatively than by duking it out, trying to exercise raw power unilaterally. Fighting with each other, ultimately, is hugely inefficient.

Because Wikipedia cannot defend against such groupings, it is trying to suppress them, that was clearly the motivation behind the topic bans in the EEML case, to discourage such off-wiki cooperation. But that's essentially stupid, because all that has happened is that the more open and cooperative set of editors is being punished, while another set, also cooperating off-wiki but not proven to be doing so, so clearly, is getting exactly what it wanted: the exclusion of these editors. In my examination of the activities of the EEML editors, I saw little serious push for massive blocking or banning of the "Russian editors," and there were also clear signs of cooperation with the more cooperative editors from that block. ArbComm failed to examine the evidence neutrally, so eager were certain members (Coren, most notably, he was explicit) to sanction "off-wiki collaboration."

There is a far more effective approach, that would harness the power of off-wiki collaboration and use it to achieve the shared goals of the project. A much more intelligent approach is to recognize the value of increased communication and cooperation among editors, and encourage it, not sanction it. Really, it ought to be obvious that there is something way off about sanctioning people simply for communicating with each other. If two people cooperate in a "bad action," then they are both responsible for that action and would be sanctioned for the action, not for collaboration. The one who acts is responsible, and that is supposedly part of wikitheory.

Sanctioning people for voluntary communication is rightfully called oppression and suppression of free speech. On-wiki, there are standards for speech, but off-wiki, it's none of ArbComm's business, if they had any sense. Unfortunately, too many of them don't; the smartest have resigned.

I suppose it could be formally organized off-wiki at someplace like WR. Heh heh heh heh. That might be anough to torque them into another BADSITES frenzy. WR does some of this already, but we don't actually have a dedicated subforum, or even editorial page "site endorsement" for politicos, like some print media do.

WR is too diffuse, it doesn't have decision-making structures, methods for negotiating group consensus. I'd use mailing lists, in fact, but the design would be cellular. Compromise of a single list at most could affect only a relatively small portion of the overall structure. Delegable proxy lends itself to this, it's largely a bulletproof structure, very difficult to corrupt even from within. I know some of what's needed to create such structures, and I doubt that I could control them myself. The design distributes power by distributing communication load, and the "nodes," the synapses of this effective social nervous system, are mutually voluntary assignments of trust.

In delegable proxy discussions, we speak of proxies and clients, and the theory indicates that proxies should be accepted to be valid, further nomination and acceptance implies consent to directly communicate, and I can say that I would not accept a proxy from anyone who wouldn't identify to me who they were. Sure, I could make a mistake. But my personal mailing list to all my clients would not include more than maybe twenty, of the most-trusted of those who wanted to be clients of mine. Probably not going to betray the list, and the list won't have a huge number of subscribers. Rather, if there were more people who wanted to express trust in my through a structure like that, I'd refer them to clients of mine. Who would have their own lists. And I, in turn, would be a part of someone else's client list. Through forwarding of emails -- and under difficult circumstances, they'd be anonymized, simply relevant parts would be quoted -- messages would propagate rapidly through the structure; I haven't described all the features. But if I forward a mail, either "up" or "down" the structure (and because of loops, up and down aren't all that different), I'm taking personal responsibility for it, my name would be on it in the list to which it was sent.

For speed, there would be bypasses so that missing individuals would not stop general communication flow. And this may seem complex, but to each individual it would look very simple and easy, traffic would be relatively low, even if the virtual organization were quite large. In fact, the organization could become the population of the earth, and the traffic would remain about the same, it's limited by the number of clients that a given proxy is willing to accept; a cycle of propagation up and down would simply take longer. Would you want a thousand people who believed that you would respond personally to their emails? I can say that I wouldn't!

[Somey]

As it is, the cabal has its own little group which serves in this function, and runs by IRC and old-boy cronyism, and they want no competition for this. Laziness, my ass. This is about keeping the power you have already, and have gotten by means which stink badly.

It's both. I'm still not as negative as you, Milton, I ascribe the problems to defective structure, not to the editors who play the game within that structure. Some are pretty scuzzy, but the real problem is a system that gives them excess power and does not restrain it. Who is responsible for the system? Who provides the labor that runs Wikipedia? Same answer. Blaming the parasites is the wrong approach, they merely took advantage of opportunities that we offered by being incoherent and not caring enough to organize ourselves. We are "lazy," really, if I'm going to use that word. Wikipedia will continue as it is (short of what is here called the "lockdown," Somey?) which, I agree, could come as labor support collapses, which is one of the possibilities.)

Well, since you invoked my pseudonym... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

IMO, ascribing the problems to "defective structure" is actually more negative, since it implies that there's no realistic way of fixing said problems. There's also a distinction to be made in that the system doesn't give them excess power, but rather it fails to prevent them from taking excess power. The point is that you have to have both - any organizational structure, no matter how well-designed, can be made weak or corrupt by the inclusion of bad people.

When you ask, "Who is responsible for the system?", you're asking the wrong question; the question is "who takes responsibility for the operation of the system?", and the answer to that is "nobody." The labor that runs Wikipedia isn't necessarily the same as the labor that writes and researches Wikipedia, either. The "system," such as it is, is brilliantly designed for one purpose only: attracting a wide range of opinionated, bitter, disaffected, and/or arrogant narcissistic types (plus a few altruistic types here and there, just for variety), and getting them all to interact with each other in various ways ranging from collegiality to hate-filled confrontationalism. As a by-product, these people also add "free" content (of varying degrees of quality) to web pages. A relatively small number of individuals have quite naturally formed a core-group within this system to "run" it, but this core group is still way too large to be manageable, and it has been since 2006. In any oversized group of people lacking effective leadership and a coherent purpose, you will get factionalism, and factionalism is a weakness that can be taken advantage of.

Ultimately I still agree with much of what you're saying, though...

As for the "lockdown" thing, it isn't just lack of labor support that will bring this about (assuming you're referring to reduction in number-of-active-editors overall). Other factors may include external societal pressure, greater proficiency and aggressiveness of malefactors, or even just lack of funding. But ultimately it will happen because the core group either dissolves or no longer shows up to do the job, or because they demand it as the price of their continuing to do it. The core group does the heavy lifting, and once they're gone (or just stop trying), there will really be no other choice.

Regardless, I see this as much more likely than would be suggested by the phrase "one of the possibilities" - this has been part of the life-cycle of web-based communities since the first ones began to appear in the mid-1990's. Wikipedia isn't doing anything to change their trajectory along that life-cycle, and I doubt they could if they wanted to.

[Kelly Martin]

The "system," such as it is, is brilliantly designed for one purpose only: attracting a wide range of opinionated, bitter, disaffected, and/or arrogant narcissistic types (plus a few altruistic types here and there, just for variety), and getting them all to interact with each other in various ways ranging from collegiality to hate-filled confrontationalism. As a by-product, these people also add "free" content (of varying degrees of quality) to web pages.

Best description of Wikipedia I've read yet. Thank you, Somey.